Alistair Darling: On 23 November 2009 the Governor of the Bank of England informed the Chair of the Treasury Committee of how, in exceptional circumstances, the Bank of England extended emergency liquidity assistance (ELA) to RBS and HBOS in the autumn of 2008.
	The Treasury granted the Bank an indemnity in October 2008. This indemnified the Bank on a net basis against losses that it might suffer or incur in connection with the Bank's commitment to ensure that the banking system had sufficient access to liquidity, including this ELA. The indemnity was granted given the size of the operations the Bank had entered into, and considered in the context of the existing demands on the Bank's balance sheet at that time. It was not related to any perception of the increased risks associated with lending to the banks, for instance because of any concerns regarding the quality of the collateral posted by the banks.
	The indemnity was provided for actions taken by the Bank from 14 October 2008 for a period of two months. The Bank paid an indemnity fee of 170bps to the Treasury on borrowings it guaranteed. The total use of ELA across both banks was £61.6 billion on 17 October. The peak of the indemnity was £18.1 billion on 27 October. Treasury received fees totalling £18.9 million for this indemnity. This was recognised as "other dividends and interest" income which is payable to the consolidated fund in the 2008-09 resource accounts. The amount was not separately identified, but included within the total other dividends and interest income balance of £866.7 million disclosed in note 9, page 201 of the resource accounts.
	The Bank's assessment at that time was that it was vital that its ELA operations remained confidential, and that any disclosure or leak of the operations would seriously jeopardise the financial stability of the system as a whole. I shared this assessment. I also judged that the risk to public resources was low given the quality of the collateral received by the Bank. Having carefully considered the case for disclosure of the of the prevailing circumstances, would not be in the public interest.
	The Bank no longer considers it necessary for the assistance to remain confidential. I also share that judgment. Market conditions have improved considerably, and the disclosure by Lloyds Banking Group in their recent prospectus of the current aggregate amount of support it has received from the authorities has not destabilised to the markets. In the light of those developments, I now consider that the balance of the public interest is in disclosure.
	I remain of the view that the Bank of England must be allowed to provide assistance to financial institutions on a confidential basis as financial stability may require.
	I have written to the Chairs of the Treasury Committee and the Public Accounts Committee on this matter and a copy of these letters has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Angela Smith: Plans to change the Charity Commission's departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and administration budget for 2009-10.
	Subject to parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Charity Commission DEL will be increased by £1,615,000 from £30,149,000 to £31,764,000 and the administration budget will be increased by £1,000,000 from £30,219,000 to £31,219,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources is as set out in the following table:
	
		
			  New DEL £'000 
			  Change Voted Non-voted Total 
			 Resource DEL  of which:  Administration budget(*)  Near cash in DEL 1,000  1,000  1,000 31,219  31,219  30,119 0  0 31,219  31,219  30,119 
			 Capital 615 1,315 0 1,315 
			 Depreciation(**) 0 -770 0 -770 
			 Total 1,615 31,764 0 31,764 
			 (*)The total of 'Administration budget' and 'Near cash in Resource DEL' may be greater than total resource DEL due to the definition overlapping. (**)Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting. 
		
	
	The change in Resource DEL arises from:
	changes in operating Appropriations in Aid of £1,000,000 funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the continuation of the International Outreach project. This increase is fully offset by changes in spending and does not impact on the Commission's Departmental Expenditure Limit; and
	the utilisation of £1,000,000 of the Commission's Resource EYF.
	The change in the Capital DEL reflects the utilisation of £615,000 of the Commission's Capital EYF.
	The funds from Resource EYF and Capital EYF will be used to rationalise our estate (the London, Liverpool and Taunton offices) and to implement a file storage system. These investment programmes will generate future cost savings.

Phil Hope: The Department has today published the consultation document-"Personal Care at Home: a consultation on proposals for regulations and guidance".
	The Personal Care at Home Bill, published today, contains new proposals costing £670 million, which are the Government's first step towards setting up a new National Care Service-a simple, fair and affordable care system for everyone.
	Subject to parliamentary approval, from next October, older people and younger disabled people will be better helped to live independently for longer in their own homes-something they tell us they really want.
	The Bill guarantees free personal care for the 280,000 people-including those with serious dementia or Parkinson's disease-with the highest needs. Some of those already get free care-this Bill will protect their savings from future charges. Others will get free care for the first time. We will also help around 130,000 people who need home care for the first time to regain their independence.
	This intensive help or "re-ablement" will help people to regain their independence and prevent ill health. This means people will maintain their dignity and rebuild their confidence so that they can live at home for longer. Helping people to stay in their own homes could involve adapting their homes.
	New equipment installed in people's homes to help them stay there could include electronic pill dispensers or movement activated alarms using the voice of a grandchild to remind an elderly person to close the door, for example. Helping people to stay in their own homes and adjust their living conditions so they can stay safely, puts prevention at the heart of the system.
	The consultation covers three main areas:
	what should be contained in the regulations made under the Bill;
	what should be contained in the guidance accompanying the regulations; and
	suggests three ways of allocating funding to councils.
	The consultation document has been placed in the Library and copies are available for hon. Members from the Vote Office.

Jack Straw: Following discussions with the current Lord Chief Justice and an evaluation of the current workload pressures on the High Court Bench I have agreed that it is now appropriate to accede to the Lord Chief Justice's recent request for the 108th High Court Judge post to be filled.
	On 9 and 12 June 2008 the House of Commons and the House of Lords respectively debated an Order in Council relating to an increase in the number of Lords Justice of Appeal. The purpose of that order was to allow for an increase of one Lord Justice to enable the Chair of the Law Commission to be of that rank rather than a High Court Judge as had been the case. To offset the additional costs I had agreed with the then Lord Chief Justice that we would leave vacant the 108th statutorily available High Court Judge post. Assurances were given to both Houses that the cost of this decision was simply the difference between the annual salary cost of a High Court Judge and that of a Lord Justice. Additionally, in response to a specific question raised in the House of Lords, an assurance was given that the decision to leave the 108th High Court Judge post vacant would not cause uncontainable work pressures on the remainder of the High Court Bench.
	Workload across all three divisions of the High Court has since increased significantly. Family division work has increased by 10 per cent., Chancery by 30 per cent. and Queen's Bench by just under 8.5 per cent. In addition there has been an increase in the number of long cases which has an additional impact on lengthening waiting times. I am satisfied that now is the time to increase the size of the High Court Bench to help contain this increased workload.
	The annual cost of this additional High Court Judge will be £249,000 (including National Insurance and pension contributions) and will be contained within existing budgets, mainly through the reduction of deputy sitting days.